Peeling, cleaning and freezing shrimps not 'manufacture' under section 80HHC; deduction claim disallowed as commodity unchanged

SC allowed the appeal, holding that the taxpayer's activity of buying shrimps and merely peeling, cleaning and freezing them does not constitute manufacture or production for purposes of section 80HHC. The Court declined to infer a more involved process in the absence of detailed record, rejected comparison to a prior case on facts, and endorsed the principle that processed or frozen shrimps remain the same commodity as raw shrimps; consequently the processing activity did not qualify for the deduction and the claim was disallowed.

---

---

Issues:
1. Whether the assessee's business involves 'production'Rs.
2. Whether the assessee is entitled to exemption under section 80HH of the Income-tax Act, 1961Rs.

Analysis:

1. The case involved an appeal by the Revenue concerning the assessment year 1977-78, focusing on whether the assessee's business involved 'production' and if the assessee was eligible for exemption under section 80HH of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee claimed the allowance under section 80HH, stating it was an industrial undertaking that manufactured/produced articles by buying shrimps, peeling them, and freezing them. However, there was a lack of detailed information on the process undertaken by the assessee besides peeling and freezing the shrimps.

2. The Tribunal, Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), and the High Court initially upheld the assessee's claim, considering buying and processing shrimps as production activities. The High Court referenced a similar case involving prawns and emphasized the importance of not doubting the findings unless they were perverse. However, the Supreme Court referred to a precedent where processed or frozen shrimps were not considered distinct commodities from raw shrimps, leading to the conclusion that processing shrimps did not amount to manufacturing or production.

3. The Supreme Court, relying on the precedent and the lack of detailed evidence on the process undertaken by the assessee, reversed the High Court's decision. The Court rejected the idea of remanding the case for further evidence, stating it was too late for the assessee to provide additional information for the assessment year in question. Consequently, the appeal by the Revenue was allowed, setting aside the judgment and answering the question in the negative in favor of the Revenue, with no order as to costs.

---